Nothing personal against the people doing the ratings, of course. The last thing I'd want to do is piss anyone off who contributes so much to the game.Here's my beef with Michael Spinks.

1. A TKO rating of 1That number is reserved for those who could soak up inhuman amouts of punishement like a Tex Cobb or Jake LaMotta. Even a Marvin Hagler or Rocky Marciano who could walk through bombs and still be firing away. Does that sound like Michael Spinks? A 2 would be much more realistic.

2. A chin rating of 1Again, Michael Spinks was rocked throughout his career and flattened against Tyson. Although that was at Heavyweight, it's very hard to see him having at Light Heavyweight, a better chin than, let's say - Larry Holmes did at Heavyweight. He didn't exactly face any Archie Moore's, Ezzard Charles's, Bob Fosters, Gene Tunney's, Harry Greb's, etc. during his reign. Rating him amongst the all-time fighters, I give him a 2 for his chin and a knockout rating of 1. Still excellent and more realistic.

I wouldn't doubt if Marvin Hagler had defeated him had he risen in weight. Hagler was great against tall, ranging guys like Spinks who liked to fight on the outside. Spinks had a big right hand, but if Hagler could take it, then he'd really have his hands full.

Adjusting the two ratings mentioned above, at least from where I'm sitting, creates a more accurate version of the real Michael Spinks.

Maybe I should have titled the thread "a little overrated" instead! Spinks was very, very good. But it's hard seeing him up there with Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Gene Tunney, etc. Not that he couldn't have beaten them on the right night. But I think he would have had to get them on "the right night."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum